Talk:Polish Center for Holocaust Research

The study identified small Polish towns as particularly dangerous

Please explain how to hide in a small town. Xx236 (talk) 12:05, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

over half a million Jewish Holocaust victims died as a result of the actions of non-Jewish Poles

In fact the research proves about 40 000 victims [1].Xx236 (talk) 12:08, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

It would seem that mainline researchers disagree with the 40,000. Note that rp.pl can not be seen as a WP:RS on the subject, since due to the 2018 Holocaust law publications (although research perhaps not) that "insult the Polish nation", particularly in regards to Polish complicity with the Nazis, are outlawed in Poland.[2] Therefore, we should avoid sources that are restricted by the Polish legislation.Icewhiz (talk) 12:18, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

The 40,000 number well predates the 2018 Institute of National Remembrance amendment. Nihil novi (talk) 18:09, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

That may be the case, however research into this topic has advanced and there has been a diversity of academic opinion for some time. Coverage from an outlet affected by the Holocaust law, and at risk for prosecution for insulting the Polish nation, on the state of research in 2018 is not a source that is reliable.Icewhiz (talk) 18:16, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Rzeczpospolita is well regarded mainsteam newspaper that is a very reliable source.If someone believes otherwise he is welcome to rise this on RSN. There are no laws prohibiting historical research in Poland, outside of course of Holocaust Denial like in any other country.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:03, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Due to recent legislation in Poland, reported by multiple RS, e.g. the bbc, which criminalizes writing about Polish Holocaust complicity, and which has been applied vs. newspapers[3] - Polish media can not be considered independent nor reliable for reporting on Polish Holocaust complicity. Also, this appeared in "plus minus" which seems to be a blog or opinion section - not under Rzeczpospolita's editorial control. While the new law may not prohibit research (this is debatable - "chiiling effect") - it does prohibit reporting and discussion based on that research. The law outlaws, per most worldwide RSes, discussion on well established historical facts on Polish complicity. I suggest you take this to RSN - WP:ONUS is on you to include.Icewhiz (talk) 20:57, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

No, not really. Rzeczpospolita is perfectly reliable source that was used countless times in Wikipedia. Frankly it's pretty absurd to claim it isn't reliable. Plus minus is its weekend edition, not opinion blog. As to your own personal theories on Polish laws, please stop spamming talk pages on every subject with your interpretation. If you believe that all Polish sources about Holocaust aren't reliable then go to RSN, in fact I welcome you to do this finally, instead of restarting the same claim on every talk page.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:05, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Polish media from 2018 can not be considered reliable regarding the Polish role in the Holocaust, due to widely reported censorship imposed by the new Polish law on this narrow subject. ONUS is on you.Icewhiz (talk) 21:09, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

"Polish media from 2018 can not be considered reliable regarding the Polish role in the Holocaust"

Feel to start a debate on this on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. For obvious reasons I will not stop using Polish sources, just because of one user's personal theories and interpretations that are quite visibly becoming obsessive.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:11, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

THe whole Holocaust law propaganda is dumb, not only unreliable. Tens of journalists without any knowledge misinform about the Holocaust in Poland and Izewhiz quotes the idiots as RS. You becaome what you quote.Xx236 (talk) 07:40, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Am I "useful" at least? The "holocaust law" has been widely covered - by journalists, by holocaust scholars speaking up, and legal/human right figures as well (with some coverage starting to appears in journals - e.g. [4][5]) - and has been rather one-sided.Icewhiz (talk) 07:48, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Not mine, but rather those of multiple RSes - [6][7][8][9][10].Icewhiz (talk) 21:19, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Feel feel to present them at RSN.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:22, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:ONUS.Icewhiz (talk) 21:24, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

As said, you are free to put this for debate on WP:RSN. Rzeczpospolita is a reliable mainstream newspaper that was used in numerous articles.The idea to discard all Polish media is obviously of such magnitude that you will need much more than your personal comments on talk page but a Wikiwide policy.Again I welcome you to discuss this on appropriate channels.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:30, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

In a similar discussion Talk:Jan Grabowski (historian) Icewhiz quotes his reliable sources. The sources quote Grabowski or the Center, more or less influenced/dominated by Grabowski. You don't get multiple sources quoting one source repeated by many ignorants. None of your reliable sources has done any research of the subject, they indoctrinate, the same like they indoctrinated in January/February about an alleged Holocaust law. Xx236 (talk) 07:26, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

The new book describes also an ethnically mixed area. Belarus and Ukrainian people didn't consider to be Polish. Some of them murdered ethnic Poles.Xx236 (talk) 12:25, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

"The 1,600-page, two-volume study covers 9 counties of Poland"

Whoever wrote that sentence seems to lack knowledge about the subject or some extreme POV-Poland didn't exist as a country after October 1939 and was occupied by Soviets and Germans.The study doesn't cover Poland but 8 and half counties of the special administrative zone established in part of Poland known as General Government --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 10:39, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

We follow sources, not opinions. (Poland has also claimed to continue existing 39-44 and is a geographical term, but that is beyond the point). This is what the cited source said. Furthermore, the methodology of the study, as I understand it, was to use pre-war, wartime, and post-war records - using the pre-war counties as a baseline.Icewhiz (talk) 15:35, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

You are quite correct Icewhiz that Poland to continue to exist legally, and that places like Bialystok or Warsaw continued to be legally Polish, despite being occupied by Soviets and Germans. However effectively Poland had no control over its territory and its political institutions and functionaries were more concerned with survival in face of German and Soviet genocide actions towards Poles, it would be very inappropriate to state these actions happened in Poland without stating that they happened under German occupation or in General Government.I will double check the counties thing and correct if this is the case.Do you insist on using Poland here instead of German occupied Poland or General Government? The later is more precise as it there were different zones of occupation.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:16, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Depends on the sources treat this - and there may be some post-war (44+) content there. Are all 9 (or 8.5) in the GG? That may be an issue as well for GG. Occupied Poland is probably the easiest switchup - it depends on sourcing, and I have not reviewed recent English sourcing (the passage as written went in a year ago IIRC).Icewhiz (talk) 16:34, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, just say "occupied Poland". --K.e.coffman (talk) 20:14, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

  Note - we should be careful with "German occupied" as the book may also cover "Soviet occupied". Just "occupied" covers all the bases in relation to (almost all) wartime Poland.Icewhiz (talk) 20:20, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Which areas of the Soviet occupation zone does the book cover then Icewhiz? Care you give us an example? "Just "occupied" covers all the bases in relation to (almost all)" Almost all? Which part of Poland wasn't occupied?--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:15, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

For the record the authors of the book state clearly that this refers to parts of occupied Poland in General Government only[11]--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:17, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

According to a reviewer the authors use the word "powiat" (county) in several meanings. The problem is old, in 2011 Grabowski published "Hunt for the Jews" (Judenjagd) describing pre-war county dąbrowski, part of Kreishauptmannschaft Tarnow.Xx236 (talk) 13:21, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Clairvoyant was wrong

If a clairvoyant forecasted something in February 2018 but his forecast was wrong, was such forecast notable? Xx236 (talk) 13:07, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

BLP vio

All information on BLPs needs to be sourced. I reverted an edit as it removed supporting citations on the work of BLPs, introduced content on a BLP - Dr. Sidi N'Diaye - not in the citation given, and misrepresented the way the attack on BLPs was reported on in the citation given (as well as other English RSes who widely reported this event).Icewhiz (talk) 19:34, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

The English language sources were frequently translated from French. Xx236 (talk) 08:03, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Use of non-English sources

In regards to this revert, per WP:NOENG we prefer English sources when available. English sources of a high caliber are available for the attack on the Holocaust researchers in Paris. Furthermore, Polish media itself is a subject of coverage in the context of this attack - Front page in Polish paper: 'How to spot a Jew' - The Washington Post and due to the "Holocaust law" is unable to report freely on topics relating to Polish complicity in the Holocaust. Use of Polish media raises rather serious NPOV and BLP concerns. NPOV means adhering to accepted international views - not to right wing Polish media.Icewhiz (talk) 08:06, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Will you please stop trying to remove sources on a basis of ethnic criteria from Poland related articles? That kind of behavior is odious and very much against Wikipedia policy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:14, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

The Holocaust is wider than Poland, and for the most part covered in non-Polish sources. WP:NOENG is policy. As is WP:NPOV - our goal on Wikipedia is reflect an international NPOV. In this case, the attack in Paris has been covered quite a bit over the past month in English sources, there is no need for Polish language sources. Icewhiz (talk) 08:29, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

It seems that the deputy PN isn't competent to discuss the subject. Icewhiz know better. Xx236 (talk) 13:04, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

There was an attack (on government money) - the Center has taken money from the government and published poor quality book.Xx236 (talk) 13:06, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I will also note that in addition to extensive English coverage, there is extensive French language coverage for this antisemitic attack by Polish nationalists in the French capital - e.g. :

1. " the president of the prestigious Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales (EHESS), Christophe Prochasson, has never seen a scientific conference so violently disturbed. Upstream intimidation, disruption of researchers' interventions, antisemitic remarks ... " Le Monde.
2. coverage in Marianne of the aggression in the conference fueled by propaganda on Polish state TV: Marianne
3. Christophe Prochasson (EHESS president) remarking on L'Express that: "Behind the historiographical question lies a deep anti-Semitism in one part of Polish society. None of the anti-Semitic remarks made during these two days has been condemned by official bodies, be it the Institute of National Memory, though represented in the hall, or the Polish ambassador in Paris. The Minister of Higher Education, Frédérique Vidal, even wrote to her Polish counterpart, who was content with a vague response. " L'Express.

A different picture than what's currently painted in our article based on Polish language sources. Icewhiz (talk) 13:12, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Where are recordings to prove alleged antisemitism? Frédérique Vidal atatcked Poland on March the 1st, nothing new.Xx236 (talk) 07:56, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

the Holocaust may hinder the work of Poland-based academics and institutions

Petelewicz was a poor prophet, no hinderniss has been documented. Are poor quality prophecies notable? Xx236 (talk) 11:31, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

"The conference was disrupted by Polish nationalists"

How do you identify "Polish nationalists"? Do they have fangs and clutches? Were they arrested by the police and their personal data verified? Is there a real difference between claiming that Poles murdered Jews like Hutu murdered Tutsi? It is propaganda, ignorance. Xx236 (talk) 11:59, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Fangs? Not that I am aware of. Luckily we do not classify ourselves (would be OR), but rely on WP:RSes. e.g. Le Monde - "Cette dernière l’avait interpellé, vendredi 1er mars, après qu’un groupe de nationalistes polonais a perturbé un colloque sur « la nouvelle école polonaise d’histoire de la Shoah »[[12], Tablet - "It was directly attacked by Polish anti-Semites operating in France"[13], Neue Zürcher Zeitung - " Anlass war unlängst der präzedenzlose Vorgang der Störung einer wissenschaftlichen Tagung zum Thema «Die neue polnische Schule der Holocaust-Geschichte» an der renommierten Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales (EHESS) in Paris durch polnische Nationalisten." - and there are a number of other sources available - which somehow were able to ascertain the nature of the groups and individuals involved in the disruption. Icewhiz (talk) 12:30, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Is the Center academic ?

If the Center is academic, the page should inform about academic aspects of its work. Was the Paris conference academic? The section doesn't say anything about academic aspects of it, it is about disruptions. It is an interesting comment about the Center,so naive. Icewhiz has an agenda to prove that Poles are bad people, not to inform about academic discussions. Thinking is dangerousa for propeganda.Xx236 (talk) 08:34, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Holocaust Studies and Materials

The same page is linked three times. I believe that two links should be removed.Xx236 (talk) 08:39, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Criticism

A number of Polish (Musiał is Polish-German) historians criticize some works of the Center. Lack of such informations makes the section biased.Xx236 (talk) 08:44, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Lack of internal links, nothing about translations and friends

Some of the books have their pages here, not linked, eg. Hunt for the Jews.Xx236 (talk) 08:47, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Some of the books have been republished abroad.

A number of academicans living abroad cooperate with the Center.Xx236 (talk) 08:52, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

expressed concern

Is "expressing concern" notable? Were the concerns right or rather propagandistic?Xx236 (talk) 12:19, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Institute of Philosophy and Sociology of the Polish Academy of Sciences

The Center is a unit of the Institute. So many experts, so little facts.Xx236 (talk) 12:21, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

This should be added after "interest of broad academic and international discourse"

In New Eastern Europe historian Laurence Weinbaum wrote: "Since the collapse of 'People’s Poland'… a determined band of iconoclastic Polish researchers has been trawling through archives that were once off limits . In no other post-communist country have scholars worked on the issue of native responses to the Holocaust with such tenacity and equanimity Bit by bit, they deconstructed the 'kumbaya' story that had been propagated by both the communist regime and that of its ostensibly anti-communist successors.. At the core of their narrative was the notion that Poles had, en masse, acted to aid their imperiled Jewish neighbors. Resistance to the Germans, it was insisted, was a near universal phenomenon, and collaboration an entirely marginal one… [I]t quickly became clear that this research was not for the faint of heart…. Alongside thousands of valorous rescuers who are today memorialised by Yad Vashem, many times that number saw in the desperate, existential plight of the Jews a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for El-Dorado-like self-enrichment, religious triumphalism, or the realisation of sadistic fantasies. In fact, those who did risk their lives to save Jews feared betrayal by fellow Poles more than any happenstance discovery by the Germans, which makes their audacity all the more remarkable. Yet, with each successive revelation, a spasm of vitriolic rage was unleashed against the researchers who, it was said, had defamed the nation. Sometimes, even in polite circles, among those who could not be suspected of antisemitism, there was disbelief and denial… in an interview with an Israeli newspaper, Poland’s then-foreign minister, Oxford-educated Radołsaw Sikorski, insisted that “Nazi Germany carried out the Holocaust on our soil against our will, but in front of our eyes.” Others, however, faced these findings with genuine introspection and contrition.

References

2019 Paris Conference

The conference has been redirected here a while ago (after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Polish School of Holocaust Scholarship) b/c of the claim that the Center co-organized it. But I cannot confirm this claim in the source cited, and other sources I check don't mention the Center as a co-organizer. The Center itself in their press release about the Conference mentioned other organizers and didn't call itself a co-organizer ([14]). According to PAN statement here, the event was organized by Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales (EHESS), Centre National de Recherche Scientifique (CNRS) and Collège de France.

Overall, I don't think this section is relevant here at all. Since once source claims the disruption to the conference was organized/aided by Gazeta Polska, maybe this section could be moved there? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:11, 20 January 2023 (UTC)